Wednesday, 7 August 2013

A Creative Government Could Embrace

Michael Meacher is regular defamed by all the right people, because he writes things like this:

The only argument that the Tories have put forward to justify the privatisation of Royal Mail, apart from their ideological absolutism against any role for the State, is that it will increase efficiency by allowing it to operate freely within a private market. But that argument is bogus.

First, operating within a private market under the terms of neoliberal capitalism means shrinking the workforce, sweating the assets by worsening the terms and conditions of employment, maximising short-term profits within perhaps a 5-year timescale, and then selling on to the highest bidder. All of that is contrary to the national interest.

Second, private owners will expand the most lucrative parts of the service, particularly business post, and whittle down as far as they can the more costly elements, especially universal provision at a single price for the whole country, until they feel able to drop it altogether, no doubt on the argument that it’s ‘necessary to save the rest of the service’.

Third, they will then sell it off, perhaps to another State-owned postal service abroad such as Dutch or German Post, perhaps even to private equity operating out of a tax haven (as some of the UK water companies already do) or maybe to a Chinese State corporation (already being sought to take over new nuclear build in the UK).

What does ‘efficiency’ mean? Is it efficient to stuff the directors and senior managers with whopping bonuses, long-term incentive plans and multiple share options, while at the same time increasingly casualising the workforce with pay cuts, reduced rights, easier hire and fire, and zero hours contracts? Does that inspire a committed and productive workforce, let alone a fair balance of reward?

Was it ‘efficient’ to deregulate finance when in reckless pursuit of short-term profiteering it nearly crashed the whole banking system?

Efficiency in neoliberal markets is measured by shareholder returns and mammoth executive rewards; in a well-managed economy it is measured by rising and sustainable market share, service to the community, partnership in industrial relations, and the wider national interest.

Efficiency isn’t governed by the immediate sale price (and the proposed disposal for £3bn is a knock-down price for a unique national asset) but by the future audit of costs to the State if subsidies, tax breaks or bailouts are later found necessary.

There are many different models far more suited than privatisation that a creative government could embrace. A Post Bank could be established as a not-for-profit organisation, with profits returned to the business, and with access to both government and private funding. I would be able to borrow on the open market, yet would have a clear public service remit.

The board would have public interest directors together with directors elected by the workforce which should have vested in it a quarter or third of the shares in an employee ownership scheme. It would then be driven by the long-term interests of its stakeholders – bond-holders, employees and customers – within a constitution and framework designed to serve the public good.

4 comments:

  1. What on earth is wrong with Miliband? Does he not want to win the next election? Is he asleep on the job? Why does he not state quite unequivocally that the next Labour government (if there ever is one) will restore Royal Mail back into public ownership? And the same for the railways. And the same for the basic utilities. Who is Mr Miliband? What does he stand for? Where is he on these vital topics of public interest? Nobody knows. He stirred himself to help force through the shameful gay marriage bill which was obviously vital to this country's interests, but he has now slipped back into his natural comatose state. Cameron is going to win the next election by default. Heaven help us if we have five more years of his politics. Is our salvation to be Mr Farage? Surely not?

    ReplyDelete
  2. He's getting there. Too slowly than either of us, or a lot of people, would wish. But he is.

    ReplyDelete
  3. He may be getting there but that is what they used to say about British Rail. Will he get there before 2015?
    My friends cannot stand Cameron but, at the same time, they cannot understand Miliband. They see Cameron as high-powered and effective (but in a destructive way) and Miliband as completely ineffectual. In fact, so ineffectual as to be invisible. He has been given these political gifts (Royal Mail, railways, utilities) and is squandering them through dithering. By raising no voice in opposition he is giving encouragement to the government and to those who wish to buy shares in the sell-off. If he would state quite unequivocally now that the next Labour government would take these back into public ownership it would, at least, cause those intending to buy, some hesitation. It is no good waiting until he publishes the next manifesto because this will be too late. Get off your backside Mr Miliband and show some leadership.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Where is he on these vital topics of public interest? Nobody knows""

    ""He stirred himself to help force through the shameful gay marriage bill which was obviously vital to this country's interests..."

    Yes-the modern Left cares much more about things like that, than it does about railways.

    If you want to know why, you could worse than reading Peter Hitchens.

    He says his main purpose in life is to educate people that the main goals of the modern Left are "moral, cultural and sexual revolution...very little to do with trade unions or the working class".

    I don't know how long the message will take to sink in-most conservatives still don't get it.

    ReplyDelete